https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777916 Properties were treated as proceeds of crime where the record showed convictions in the scheduled offence, transfer of immovable assets at a value far below the asserted market value, and no satisfactory documentary proof for the claimed source of funds or transferee payment. On that basis, attachment was sustained. The Tribunal also rejected the retrospectivity challenge, holding that money-laundering is distinct from the predicate offence and may constitute a continuing offence where proceeds of crime are possessed, concealed, or used after the relevant enactment. Attachment and confiscation were not treated as retroactive punishment for the original offence, so the proceedings under the Act remained maintainable. en-us Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:37:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777916 Properties were treated as proceeds of crime where the record showed convictions in the scheduled offence, transfer of immovable assets at a value far below the asserted market value, and no satisfactory documentary proof for the claimed source of funds or transferee payment. On that basis, attachment was sustained. The Tribunal also rejected the retrospectivity challenge, holding that money-laundering is distinct from the predicate offence and may constitute a continuing offence where proceeds of crime are possessed, concealed, or used after the relevant enactment. Attachment and confiscation were not treated as retroactive punishment for the original offence, so the proceedings under the Act remained maintainable. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777916